*

The HONORABLE JOHN B. JONES, Senior District Judge, United

States District Court for the District of South Dakota, sitting by

designation.

 1The Hon. Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for

the Southern District of Iowa.

___________

No. 95-2263

___________

Michael Robert French, *

* 

Appellant, *

* Appeal From The United States

v. * District Court For The 

* Southern District of Iowa

United States of America, *

*

Appellee *

___________

 Submitted: January 8, 1996

 Filed: January 31, 1996 ___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, Circuit Judge, and

JONES,* Senior District Judge.

 ___________

JONES, Senior District Judge.

Michael R. French appeals a District Court's1 denial of his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial

counsel. We affirm.

I. Factual Background

French was convicted of conspiracy to distribute marijuana in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and of using or carrying a firearm

during a drug transaction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The

facts surrounding French's conviction are set forth in our opinion

on his direct appeal. United States v. French, 12 F.3d 114 (8th

Cir. 1993). We will briefly set forth the facts relevant to this
-2-

appeal.

Prior to trial the government disclosed it intended to call

Larry Poffenberger to testify that he had seen French with a .357

magnum. At trial Poffenberger testified he saw French with a .32

snub nose rather than a .357 magnum. In addition, the government

called two undisclosed witnesses who testified they saw French with

a gun during drug-trafficking activities. French's trial counsel,

Ms. Kathy Goudy, did not object to this testimony. Rather she

attempted to impeach these witnesses. French claims his counsel

was ineffective for failing to either object to this "surprise

testimony" or request a mistrial or continuance based thereon.

French's second claim relates to his decision to testify at

trial. Prior to trial the District Court granted French's motion

to suppress several guns which had been seized from French's home.

The government was not allowed to introduce these guns in its casein-chief, however much of this evidence was introduced during the

cross-examination of French. French claims defense counsel was

ineffective in failing to inform him that if he testified the

government could cross-examine him and introduce the previously

suppressed evidence.

II. Decision

To establish his trial counsel was ineffective, French must

show that counsel's performance fell below professional standards

and that his defense was prejudiced by such ineffective

performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104

S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Thompson v. United States,

61 F.3d 586, 587 (8th Cir. 1995).

In evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance, this Court

will not second-guess counsel's strategic decisions or view them in

hindsight; rather we apply an objective standard of reasonableness.
-3-

Id. A strong presumption exists that defense counsel provided

effective assistance. Id. If counsel's performance was deficient,

then we must determine whether such a deficiency prejudiced the

defendant. Id. The defendant carries the burden "to affirmatively

prove prejudice, which requires proof `that there is a reasonable

probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the

result of the proceedings would have been different.'" United

States v. Thomas, 992 F.2d 201, 205 (8th Cir. 1993) (quoting

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068). A "reasonable

probability" is one which is "sufficient to undermine confidence in

the outcome." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068.

French contends his trial counsel should have objected to the

"surprise testimony" regarding French's possession of and use of

guns. We believe counsel made a tactical decision to attempt to

impeach these witnesses, which when viewed in the context of the

trial was a reasonable decision. See Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065

(explaining that defense counsel must have wide latitude in making

tactical decisions in representing criminal defendants).

Even if defense counsel's performance was deficient, French

was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to object to the "surprise"

testimony. Defense counsel knew prior to trial that Poffenberger

was going to testify he had seen French using or carrying a gun

during the group's drug trafficking operations. This testimony

alone would have been sufficient to support a conviction under 18

U.S.C. § 924(c). Bailey v. United States, U.S. , 116 S.Ct.

501, 509 (1995) (holding that the government must show the

defendant actively employed the firearm during and in relation to

the predicate crime to sustain a conviction under the "use" prong

of § 924(c)). French's argument regarding Poffenberger's

conflicting testimony on the type of gun used is meritless, as a

conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) does not depend upon the type

of gun used in the drug activity. The testimony of the two
-4-

undisclosed witnesses regarding French's use of a gun was

cumulative to Poffenberger's testimony and French cannot establish

prejudice for failure of defense counsel to object thereto.

French's claim that defense counsel was ineffective for

failing to inform him that if he testified the government could

cross-examine him regarding previously suppressed evidence is

meritless. Even if defense counsel's performance in this regard

was deficient, French cannot establish prejudice as he testified on

direct examination that he owned the guns in question. The

introduction of these guns during cross examination simply

corroborated French's direct testimony. Furthermore, French does

not contend that had defense counsel so informed him he would have

foregone the opportunity to testify in his defense or that he would

have accepted any plea offer by the government.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.